DO WE HAVE IT RIGHT, YET?
DO WE HAVE IT RIGHT, YET?
Sometimes I wonder if it is "in the cards" for us to ever get it right, on this earth, or "under the sun" as the writer of Ecclesiastes makes reference to our earthly abode.
Articles in assorted church periodicals indicate or admit the church-world at large is aware, subtly or not, that people have aversions about "the church" as man has seen it for centuries. Anomalies and downright bewilderment during recent decades supports this concept. Consider the many generic names of church groups: "New Life" "Faith Memorial" "Heritage Community" "New Beginnings" "Living Word". These church-names have sprouted up almost like unidentifiable weeds instead of a Baptist, Methodist or Holiness churches and Churches of Christ in Christian Union. These new descriptive generic names are chosen in place of their former denominational names. Has the former "denominational name" been intentionally obscured for some reason? The prefix "Community" has been chosen by many to tone down preconceived concepts people could have because of the "old" or former denominational names.
There is also a widening or all-inclusiveness in the publication of the Bible. For example, not only are there study and devotional Bibles but one wonders if the next one might be: "Bible for Dog or Cat Lovers" or maybe even "A Bible for Owners of Newfoundland Long-haired Field Dogs". To animal lovers out there--be assured, I like all the animals our Creator has provided for our accompaniment, companionship, etc.; I am simply "filled up to here" with the way editors and publishers feel every genre of humanity must be provided a specific version of the Bible.
The "Early American Life" magazine, August 1991 issue, carried a rather shocking account of the inner workings among the pious Puritans. "Seating the Meetinghouse" by Diana Ross McCain enlightened her readers in regard to merely SEATING of the saints in a building. If you never believed in a caste system in the United States, you're in for a big dose of it when you read Ms McCain's article. "Mechanics" (manual laborers, blacksmiths, and their ilk) "went far beyond more annoyance at rubbing elbows with men...clearly considered less-than-congenial companions." "...the central event in Puritan life, was a weekly pronouncement of his rank in the social pecking order."
If you think this is strange, odd, or funny, look around you when you "go to church" this week and notice where people sit. People, haltingly, often refer to "their pew" at their church. Serious? Usually not, but don't be too sure in some cases. Ms McCain expressed it honestly, "Popular tradition has distorted the nature of Puritan egalitarianism." Further, "Just as some seats were evidently much better than others, so were some people considered superior to their fellows, and it was the essence of the Puritan's social philosophy to give the best men the 'foreseats' and to reserve for lesser individuals those that were farther back or less desirable in other ways," explained Edmund Sinnott in his book, Meetinghouse & Church in Early New England. One feels almost overly informed after reading Ms McCain's article but it was very informative and very interesting. Clearly people considered themselves special and left no doubting in the minds of their "fellow worshipers". I wonder how God and the angels regarded that in their regular observations from the galleries of Heaven.
DO WE HAVE THE DOCTRINE RIGHT?
IF you answer, YES, then, how many doctrines are there anyway? I have lived long enough to discover every church (or denomination, synod, parish, etc.) has doctrines and dogmas that are unique to their brand or creed or Christendom, and unfortunately there seems to be a circle around most of them, and that circle in essence stands for exclusiveness. Edwin Markham once wrote, "He drew a circle that shut me out, Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had the wit to win; we drew a circle that took him in."
Oddly enough, children are born into a world without having been asked approval - of those in the family, that is. And those (unapproved) children, of course, are simply automatically included in the midst of a family. The aphorism, "Be careful of the people you choose to be your parents." succinctly stating the illogical possibility of this kind of thinking. Nobody asked us if we wanted to be born.
Biblical content is surely important in getting our doctrine right. Opinions of biblical doctrine are essential as well. The Bible, especially the New Testament is explicit in this concept and sometimes even the Apostles, specifically, Peter and Paul had a few words (some even harsh) proving they had diverging opinions! Peter even admitted some of Paul's writings were "hard to understand"--perhaps he should have said, "hard to accept". Especially the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians is extremely important when we consider the subject of "love." The Apostle Paul said "...if we have not love, we are nothing" (I Corinthians 13:2) Someone has said, "LOVE is being willing to make ourselves uncomfortable for the benefit or the sake of others." The very word "mother" is a living example of this fact. What man (the male of this business of human kind) would "make himself uncomfortable for 9 months like his wife does in order that "a child might be added to their family"?
Let's be sure we are biblically right and not end our inclusions with the words "except" or "unless". You fill in the qualifying conditions with those two words and let's see if we all can agree with what you have written as a creed or doctrine. Many of us can talk about "the church" and only include believers of our own "brand" or denominational beliefs. Wonder how God feels about this kind of thinking?
Do we really know who all is in God's Kingdom? And, if we think we know, could it be that God's list might be a little different than ours? And one other rumination - wonder why God considered animals important enough to include in the last verse of the book of Jonah (among the reasons to preach repentance to the Ninevites)?
Have you ever heard or read that our life on Earth is a testing place?
#####
